Hydrotreating of Coker Light Gas Oil on MCM-41 Supported Nickel

Chapter 2

Hydrotreating of Coker Light Gas Oil on MCM-41 Supported Nickel Phosphide Catalysts Downloaded by DUKE UNIV on September 27, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 14, 2011 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1088.ch002

Kapil Soni, P. E. Boahene, and A. K. Dalai* Catalysis and Chemical Reaction Engineering Laboratories, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A9 *E-mail: [email protected]. Tel.: +1-306-966-4771. Fax: +1-306-966-4777.

Siliceous MCM-41-supported nickel phosphides with a Ni/P atomic ratio of 2 and 0.5 were prepared by Temperature programmed reduction method. The phase purity and structural/surface properties were studied by X-ray diffraction and N2 sorption measurements respectively. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the passivated catalysts confirmed the presence of Ni2P and Ni12P5 in all catalysts prepared from oxidic precursors. Supports and catalysts were thoroughly characterized by using other techniques also; such as EDAX, SEM, and TEM. Results from low angle XRD measurements confirm the presence of hexagonally ordered mesoporous structure in MCM-41 material. Hydrotreating experiments were conducted under industrial conditions using Coker light gas oil (CLGO) as feed which contains 2,439 ppm nitrogen 23,420 ppm sulfur respectively. The activities with high Ni/P ratio (Ni/P=2 or Ni12P5/MCM-41 catalyst) exhibited higher hydrotreating activities than the catalysts with lower Ni/P ratio (Ni/P=0.5 or Ni2P/MCM-41 catalyst) due to higher activity of Ni12P5 phosphides. The ratios of HDN over HDS activities are much higher over both phosphide catalysts than over the NiMo reference sample, due to the higher dispersion of metals in the former one. It was confirmed from this research work that Ni12P5/MCM-41 has shown very promising catalytic activity for hydrotreating of Coker light gas oil than the NiMo catalysts prepared by conventional method.

© 2011 American Chemical Society In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

Keywords: HDN; HDS; CLGO; Ni12P5; Ni2P; MCM-41; BET; XRD

Downloaded by DUKE UNIV on September 27, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 14, 2011 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1088.ch002

Introduction Stringent environmental regulations of the sulfur and nitrogen content of transportation fuels and non-road fuels have put considerable pressure on the refining industry worldwide to produce cleaner fuels and have motivated much research for the development of new hydrotreating catalysts. For example, in the case of sulfur, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations that had lowered its allowed content in diesel fuel from the 500 to 15 ppmw in 2006, and in gasoline from 300 to 30 ppmw in 2004 (1, 2). For these reasons there are considerable efforts being expended to develop new technologies for the production of clean fuels, like adsorption, extraction, oxidation, alkylation, and hydroprocessing (3). However, out of these technologies hydroprocessing appears to be the technologically preferred solution. Hydroprocessing refers to a variety of catalytic hydrogenation processes that saturate heteroatomatic rings and remove S, N, O, and metals from different petroleum streams in a refinery (4). The existing challenge for hydroprocessing is deep desulfurization of diesel fuels which has refractory sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Traditional hydrotreating catalysts consist of MoS2-type phases supported on γ-Al2O3 and promoted by Co or Ni, which often contain phosphorous as a secondary promoter. These conventional catalysts are active in HDT of smaller S and N compounds, but not active enough in HDT of most refractory sulfur and nitrogen containing polyaromatic compounds (5, 6). This has led to a worldwide search for better catalysts for hydrotreating of these compounds. Current approaches include the improvement of existing sulfide catalysts and the investigation of new compositions such as carbides, nitrides, zeolites and materials containing noble metals (7–10). One of the approaches to improve HDS catalysts is to find new active phases by including other cations (e.g., Ru, Pt, Pd) and anions (e.g., carbides, nitrides) (11). Transition metal phosphides have recently been reported to be promising as a new class of high-performance hydroprocessing catalysts. Among the phosphides studied, MoP and WP were reported to be more active than the corresponding group VI metal sulfides (12–14). Ni2P was found to be the most active phase in the iron group compounds, although Fe2P, CoP, and Co2P also showed substantial HDS activities (15–19). Moreover, Ni2P showed higher HDS and HDN activities than MoP or WP (20) and have recently been reported as a new class of high activity hydroprocessing catalysts that have substantial promise as next-generation catalysts. These phosphides are regarded as a group of stable, sulfur-resistant, metallic compounds that have exceptional hydroprocessing properties (17, 20). Several articles have appeared in the literature describing the HDS and HDN properties of these metal phosphide catalysts (21–26). The hydrotreating activities of monophosphides (MoP and WP), metal rich phosphides (Co2P and Ni2P) as well as ternary phosphides (CoMoP and NiMoP) have been reported in a number of studies, most 16 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


often using model compounds to determine catalyst activity (17, 20). Oyama (27) reported the HDS of dibenzothiophene using different metal phosphides in this order Fe2P < CoP < MoP < WP < Ni2P. These catalysts were also shown to be more effective in removing S from refractory compounds such as 4-methyldibenzothiophene and 4,6-dimethyldibenzothiophene (4,6-DMDBT), than a conventional Co-Mo-S/Al2O3 catalyst (28). These metal phosphides (e.g., Ni2P) catalysts can be prepared by using a variety of methods. These methods include the temperature-programmed reduction (TPR) of nickel phosphates (20) and nickel dihydrogenphosphite (29), the decomposition of nickel thiophosphate (NiPS3) (30) and nickel dihypophosphite (31), and the reduction of oxide precursors in nonthermal H2 plasma (32). Among these methods, Ni2P catalysts which are prepared by the temperature programmed reduction of phosphate exhibits excellent hydrotreating activity for the removal of organic sulfur and nitrogen in the liquid fuels (20, 33–36). Such metal phosphide catalysts were even believed to be the next generation catalysts in replace of the transitional sulfide catalysts for the hydrotreating reactions. In the preparation of metal phosphides, it is essential to passivate the obtained metal phosphides prior to exposure to air or moisture because they react vigorously with oxygen and water, leading to the formation of metal oxides. In a typical passivation, a low concentration of O2 (0.5–1.0%) in inert gas is used to mildly oxidize the surface of the metal phosphides in order to form a protective layer, which prevents the bulk oxidation of the phosphides. Since the oxides are not catalytically active, the catalyst has to be reduced at elevated temperatures prior to the hydrotreating reaction. However, temperature programmed reduction method has the disadvantage of requiring high reaction temperatures (usually above 873 K. This reduction process led to the low surface areas of the metal phosphides or the low dispersion of the metal phosphides on supports. In order to increase the dispersion of Ni2P, the high surface area materials are being used as the supports, such as MCM-41 (34), SBA-15 (37–40), KIT-6 (37), MFI (37) and CMK-5 (39). Although alumina is a very good carrier for supported sulfides, but in the case of Ni2P catalyst, it reacts with phosphate to form aluminum phosphates on the surface (41). Silica was reported to be a superior support because of its weak interaction with phosphates (18). In this current study, siliceous MCM-41 was used as support for preparing NixPy catalysts. The MCM-41 silica has much higher surface area, which helps in high dispersion of the active phases. To obtain the desired stoichiometry, phosphorus was added in different quantities to the MCM-41 support. Although metal phosphides acts as promising alternative hydrotreating catalysts, but the assessment of these catalysts using typical refinery feedstocks are rare. In the present study, we are reporting the effect of Ni/P ratio on the HDN and HDS of Coker light gas oil (CLGO) derived from Athabasca bitumen using NixPy/MCM-41 catalysts. To our knowledge, no published work has been found NixPy catalysts were screened using CLGO as feed. For comparison, NiMo/MCM-41 catalyst was also prepared through conventional methods using ammonium hepta molybdate and nickel nitrate hexa hydrate as Mo and Ni source respectively. 17 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Experimental The MCM-41 material was synthesized using Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) as template, followed by a procedure reported elsewhere (42). In a typical synthesis procedure 35 g of Ludox HS-40 was added to 14.55 mL of water under stirring, and 18.2 mL of 40% tetramethylammonium hydroxide was added. Independently, 18.25 g of the template was dissolved in 33 mL of water, and subsequently, 7 mL of 28% NH4OH was introduced. Finally, the above two solutions containing Ludox and template were mixed together. The final mixtures were stirred together for 30 min and then transferred into a polypropylene bottle for hydrothermal treatment at 100°C for 2 days. The resulting solids were filtered, washed, dried, and calcined at 550°C for 10 h under airflow at 2°C/min ramping rate. The synthesized siliceous MCM-41 has a specific surface area of 899 m2 g−1, a pore volume of 0.90 cm3 g−1, and a BJH average pore size of 3.6 nm. MCM-41-supported nickel phosphides (Ni2P) were prepared according to a procedure adapted from the literature (39). The procedure mainly includes two steps: (1) the oxidic precursor was obtained by incipient wetness impregnation method using a solution of nickel nitrate hexa hydrate (NNA) and ammonium hydrophosphate (AHP) precursors with Ni/P atomic ratio of 2.0 and 0.5 followed by drying and calcination; (2) the precursor was converted to nickel phosphide in flowing H2 by temperature-programmed reduction. In a typical preparation of NixPy/MCM-41, a required amount of AHP was dissolved in 20 mL of deionized water to form a transparent colorless solution, then 1.96 g Ni(NO3)2.6H2O was added. The clear solution immediately became cloudy but, when the pH of the mixture was adjusted to 2–3 using 0.5 M HNO3, it became clear again. A quantity of 4.00 g of MCM-41 was evacuated for 0.5 h and then wet-impregnated with the prepared solution for 0.5 h at room temperature. The mixture was heated to evaporate the water, and then the obtained solid was dried at 120°C overnight, followed by calcination in air at 500°C for 3 h. The oxidic precursor was pelletized, crushed, and sieved to ~20 mesh. The supported oxidic precursor was subjected to a temperature-programmed hydrogen reduction in a tubular reactor. The temperature program included two stages: (1) heating at 5 °C min-1 from room temperature to 120°C and maintaining at 120°C for 1 h to remove adsorbed moisture in a H2 flow of 150 mL min-1 (2) further heating from 120 to 400 °C at 5°C min-1 and from 400 to 550°C at 1°C min-1, then holding the temperature at 550°C for 3 h. To protect the metal phosphide structures, the prepared Ni2P is passivated in a 1.0 mol% O2/He flow (30 mL min-1) at ambient temperature and pressure for 2 h. The synthesized catalysts are denoted as NixPy(z), where z represents the Ni/P atomic ratio in the precursor. Both of the oxidic precursors were prepared with the same procedure, using constant amount of Ni(NO3)2.6H2O with varying AHP amount to keep desired Ni/P ratio.

18 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

Characterization


Measurement of N2 Adsorption–Desorption Isotherms The BET surface area, pore volume, and pore size distribution of the samples were measured with a Micromeritics ASAP 2000 instrument using low temperature N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms. Before measuring, the sample was degassed in vacuum at 200°C. The surface area was computed from these isotherms using the multi-point Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method based on the adsorption data in the partial pressure P/P0 range from 0.01 to 0.2. The value of 0.1620 nm2 was taken for the cross-section of the physically adsorbed N2 molecule. The mesopore volume was determined from the N2 adsorbed at a P/P0 = 0.4. The total pore volume was calculated from the amount of nitrogen adsorbed at P/P0 = 0.95, assuming that adsorption on the external surface was negligible compared to adsorption in pores.The pore diameter and pore volume were determined using the (BJH) method. In all cases, correlation coefficients above 0.999 were obtained. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) Analysis The low-angle X-ray diffraction patterns of the samples were measured using a Bruker D8 Advance Powder diffractometer with a Ge monochromator producing a monochromatic Cu Kα radiation. The scanning was made from 1.5° to 10° with a 2θ step size of 0.02 and a step time of 2 s. In all cases, the generator was operated at 40 kV and 30 mA. To avoid the problem of illuminated areas at low 2θ angles, all samples were measured using the same sample holder. Broad angle powder X-ray diffraction patterns of all catalysts were recorded on a Rigaku diffractometer using Cu Kα radiation in the range 10–80° with a scan rate of 2°/min. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) The morphological features of the support and catalysts were studied from electron micrographs obtained with a JEOL 2011 scanning transmission electron microscope. The powder samples were grounded softly in an agate mortar and dispersed in heptane in an ultrasonic bath for several minutes. A few drops were then deposited on 200 mesh copper grids covered with a holey carbon film. The electron micrographs were recorded in electron negative films and in a digital PC system attached to the electron microscope. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs were observed on a Hitachi-S4700 microscope. Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis Quantitative compositional analysis was carried out with an energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) system attached to the electron microscope, which was operated at 25 kV. Determination of the chemical composition was based on the average analytical data of individual particles. 19 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Catalytic Activity Hydrotreating experiments were performed in a trickle bed reactor under typical industrial conditions. The coker light gas oil (CLGO) derived from Athabasca bitumen was used as a feed for the hydrotreating studies. CLGO is a complex combination of hydrocarbons from the distillation of the products from a thermal cracking process (fluid coker). It consists of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C11 through C28 and boiling in the range of 200–450°C (Table 1) with specific gravity of 0.95 at 20°C and contains 0.24 and 2.3 wt % of nitrogen and sulfur, respectively. The high pressure reaction set up used in this study simulates the process that takes place in industrial hydrotreaters. The system consists of liquid and gas feeding sections, a high pressure reactor, a heater with temperature controller for precisely controlling the temperature of the catalyst bed, a scrubber for removing the ammonium sulfide from the reaction products, and a high pressure gas–liquid separator. The length and internal diameter of the reactor were 240 and 14 mm, respectively. The details of catalyst loading into the reactor are described elsewhere (43). Typically, the catalyst bed, approximately 10.5 cm long, was packed with 5 cm3 of catalyst (2.0 g) and 12 cm3 of 90 mesh silicon carbide.

Table 1. Characteristics of Coker Light Gas Oil derived from Athabasca bitumen Characteristic

Coker Light Gas Oil

Nitrogen (ppm)

2439

Sulfur (ppm)

23,420

Density (g/ml)

0.95

Boiling point distribution IBP (°C)

169

FBP (°C)

548

Boiling range (°C) IBP–250

6

250–300

22

300–350

31

350–400

23

401–450

9

450–500

6

500–FBP

3



Before reaction, the phosphide catalysts were activated by in situ reduction in an H2 stream at atmospheric pressure (25 cm3/min) while being heated at a rate of 3°C/min to 400°C and held at this temperature for 2 h. Following activation, the catalyst was precoked (stabilized) with CLGO for 5 days at a temperature of 370°C, pressure of 8.8 MPa, and LHSV of 2.0 h-1. After precoking, HDN and HDS activities of the catalysts were studied at three different temperatures of 370°C, 350°C, and 330°C using CLGO for 3 days at each temperature. The pressure, H2/feed ratio and LHSV were maintained constant at 8.8 MPa, 600 ml/ml and 2.0 h-1, respectively. The products were collected at 12 h intervals and the products stripped with nitrogen for removing the dissolved ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The total nitrogen content of the liquid product was measured by combustion/chemiluminence technique following ASTM D4629 method, and the sulfur content was measured using combustion/fluorescence technique following ASTM 5463 method. Both sulfur and nitrogen were analyzed in an Antek 9000 NS analyzer. The instrumental error in N and S analysis was 3%.

Results and Discussion Low Angle XRD Powder XRD and N2 sorption studies are regularly used to assess the quality and structural ordering of MCM-41 materials. These techniques provide important information regarding mesopores ordering in these materials. Powder XRD patterns obtained for the purely siliceous MCM-41 and NixPy/MCM-41 materials are shown in Figure 1. The pure silica, Si-MCM- 41, sample exhibits an XRD pattern which is typical of a well ordered material and shows an intense (100) diffraction peak and at least two higher order peaks (42). The incorporation of metals in MCM-41 support (NixPy/MCM-41: 2.0) results in a reduction in the intensity of the (100) peak due to slight modification in MCM-41 structure. In the case of NixPy/MCM-41 catalyst with Ni/P =0.5, all peaks are disappeared due to loss in the periodicity of the MCM-41 structure. The (100) peak for NixPy/MCM-41(2.0) samples is shifted to higher 2-theta values compared to pure MCM-41 indicating a decrease in basal (d100) spacing (44). Broad Angle XRD The effects of ratio of Ni/P can be clearly seen in the broad angle XRD pattern of MCM-41 supported NixPy catalysts (Figure 2). At higher Ni/P ratios (2.0), significant amount of catalytic active phases are present as Ni12P5 species. Henceforth, this catalyst is referred as Ni12P5/MCM-41 catalyst. The characteristic peaks corresponding to Ni12P5 are visible at 2θ value of 39°, 42°, and 49.3°. As the amount of phosphorus in the oxidic precursor is increased to a molar ratio Ni/P =0.5, the XRD pattern for the NixPy/MCM-41 catalysts shows dominant Ni2P phase. The characteristic peaks corresponding to Ni2P are visible at 2θ value of 41°, 44°, 47°, and 54° for Ni2P/SiO2, which confirms the formation of Ni2P on the support. These catalysts can be referred as Ni2P/MCM-41 catalyst (Figure 2). Similar type of results are found by other research groups also 21 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

(45, 46). These results clearly explain that ratio of Ni/P changes the active phase in the final catalysts.


N2 Adsorption-Desorption Isotherms and Pore Size Distribution The N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms, pore size distribution and textural properties of the prepared MCM-41 support and supported catalysts are shown in Figure 3 and Table 2. All the isotherms are corresponding to a Brunauer type IV isotherm of adsorption and desorption. Three well-distinguished regions of the adsorption isotherm are present, indicating the presence of monolayer-multilayer adsorption, capillary condensation, and multilayer adsorption on the outer surface. The hysteresis loop with features of H2-type hysteresis and the occurrence of pore filling over a relatively wide P/P0 range (0.25-0.60) suggest a broad pore size distribution for MCM-41 material. These results indicate that the supports and the catalysts exhibit a uniform textural porosity. It can be seen from Figure 3 and Table 2 that as metal content increases, the surface area, pore volume and pore diameter decreases continouosly due to pore blocking effect. In the case of NixPy/MCM-41(0.5), the pore channels significantly blocked by P species, which might formed from the deposition of excess volatile P species (P and PH3) during the transformation of oxidic precursors to Ni2P. It can be seen in Figure 3C that the shape of the isotherm is quite different from Figure 3A and 3B due to very high metal loadings which causes a significant amount of pore blockage and a reason for distorting the pore structure.

Figure 1. Low angle XRD Pattern of MCM-41 supported catalysts (A) MCM-41, (B) NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0), and (C) NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5). 22 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Figure 2. Broad angle XRD pattern of MCM-41 supported catalysts (A) MCM-41, (B) NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0), and (C) NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5).

Table 2. Textural characterization of MCM-41 and supported catalysts NixPy with different Ni/P ratio Sample

Metal composition (wt %)

SBET (m2/g)

Dp (nm)

Vp (cm3/g)

Ni

P

-

-

899

3.6

0.90

NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0)

11.68

2.68

443

3.4

0.75

NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5)

11.68

7.50

376

3.1

0.51

MCM-41

SBET, specific surface area calculated by the BET method. Dp, mesopore diameter corresponding to the maximum of the pore size distribution obtained from the adsorption isotherm by the BJH method. Vp, pore volume determined by nitrogen adsorption at a relative pressure of 0.98.



Figure 3. N2 adsorption-desorption isotherm of MCM-41 supported catalysts (A) MCM-41, (B) NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0), and (C) NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5).

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Analysis Distinct differences in the morphology and particle sizes of the samples are observed using transmission electron micrographs (TEM). The TEM image shown in Figure 4 provides insight into the porous framework of MCM-41 and NixPy/MCM-41(2.0) materials. A typical hexagonal pore structure of MCM-41 materials with network channels, uniform pore sizes, and long-range ordering can be seen in Figure 4A, that was also confirmed by low angle XRD patterns. The TEM micrographs of NixPy/MCM-41(2.0) illustrated in Figure 4B show no significant changes in the catalyst morphology, suggesting that the metals are uniformly dispersed on the surface of the MCM-41 support. Some metal agglomerates are present on the external surface of the support and some particles seem to be distributed into the support porosity. From the TEM micrograph, the calculated pore diameter is about 3 nm, which is close to that estimated from the nitrogen sorption isotherms. It is clear from Figure 4C that, at high metal loading (NixPy/MCM-41(0.5), most of the pores has been blocked by metal content which causes less dispersed species” 24 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Scanning electron microscopy pictures of pure MCM-41 material are illustrated in Figure 5A. These images reveal that MCM-41 is made up of aggregate with fine particles of smaller than 1 μm. The SEM picture of MCM-41 supported NixPy (2.0) catalysts is also shown in Figure 5B. The supported catalysts have similar morphology as pure support has indicating that MCM-41 support helps to maintain good dispersion of active species without losing morphology.

Figure 4. TEM images of MCM-41 supported catalysts (A) MCM-41, (B) NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0), and (C) NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5).



Figure 5. SEM image of MCM-41 support and supported NixPy(2.0) catalysts.

Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis To obtain evidence of the uniform dispersed deposition of the active phase in the MCM-41 supported NixPy (2.0) catalyst utilization of elemental composition determination using EDAX was carried out while performing TEM. Ni and P were detected at two arbitrary points of a newly synthesized catalyst. The quantitative analysis of different elements showed ~11 wt. % Ni and ~2wt. % P content for this sample in the two arbitrary chosen points. The obtained EDAX spectra of the two arbitrary points of the newly synthesized catalyst sample showed no significant change in relative intensities (figure not shown). The EDAX results provide a strong indication that most of the Ni and P in the synthesized catalyst are uniformly distributed in the MCM-41 support.

Catalytic Activity Studies In this study, the HDN and HDS activities, expressed as percent conversion, were measured using synthesized NixPy/MCM-41 catalysts with different Ni/P ratios. For comparison, the activity studies of NiMo/MCM-41 was also measured (Figure 6). Before reaction, the phosphide catalysts were activated by H2 stream at atmospheric pressure (25 cm3/min) while being heated at a rate of 3°C/min to 400°C and held at this temperature for 2 h. After activation, the temperature was lowered to 370°C. The NiMo/MCM-41 catalysts were sulfided before reaction by injecting sulfidation solution containing 2.9 vol % of butanethiol in straight run atmospheric gas oil at a pressure and temperature of 8.8 MPa and 193°C, respectively, for 24 h. The flow rate of the sulfiding solution was 5 mL/min. The H2 flow rate was kept at a rate corresponding to H2/sulfiding solution ratio of 600 mL/mL. The temperature of the reactor was increased to 343°C and maintained for another 24 h. 26 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


To achieve steady-state activity, all the catalysts were stabilized by precoking using CLGO at a temperature, pressure, LHSV, and H2/feed ratio of 370°C, 8.8 MPa, 2 h-1, and 600 ml/ml, respectively for 5 days. HDN and HDS activities of the MCM-41 supported NixPy catalysts are higher than MCM-41 supported NiMo catalysts. At initial stage of the reaction, the HDN and HDS activities of these catalysts are very high due to high number of active sites. The N and S conversions of the CLGO catalysts decreased with time on stream and reached steady-state after 3 days, probably due to coking of active sites. After precoking, the steady-state activity of all prepared catalysts were studied using the same feed at reaction temperatures of 330, 350, and 370°C, a pressure of 8.8MPa, an LHSV of 2 h−1, and a hydrogen-to-gas oil ratio of 600 mL/mL. The activity was studied for 72 h at each temperature and samples collected after every 12 h. The average N and S conversions of the last four samples at each reaction temperature are shown in Figure 6, respectively. The activity results show that MCM-41 supported NixPy catalysts show much higher catalytic activities compared to reference NiMo/MCM-41 catalysts under similar reaction conditions. The N-S conversion confirms the following order of activity: NixPy/MCM-41(2.0) > NixPy/MCM-41(0.5) > NiMo/MCM-41. These results are in agreement with the fact that MCM-41 supported NixPy catalysts have optimum metal support interaction, which helps to high and homogeneous dispersion of Ni and phosphate species and causes higher hydrotreating activity.

Figure 6. (▲) HDS and (■) HDN activities of MCM-41 supported catalysts (·····NiMo, ----- NixPy (0.5), and —— NixPy (2.0) with CLGO at different temperatures (Catalyst = 5 cm3, P = 8.8 MPa, LHSV = 2 h-1, and H2/oil ratio = 600 (v/v)). 27 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Conclusions In the present work, a series of NixPy catalysts supported on MCM-41 were prepared. The high surface area (~900m2/g) in the range of mesopores makes them suitable carriers for better and uniform distribution of metal species. It was observed that Ni/P ratio played an important role in improving dispersion and, subsequently, reduction of the Ni and P species, which makes the active for hydrotreating reaction. The N and S conversions of the MCM-41 supported NixPy catalyst are significantly higher than that of the MCM-41 supported NiMo catalysts, indicating that MCM-41 supported NixPy catalysts have optimum metal support interaction and greater dispersion of Ni and P species, which causes greater activity in hydrotreatment reactions. The catalytic activity for NixPy/MCM-41 (2.0) is high compared to NixPy/MCM-41 (0.5) due to more dispersion and less pore blocking.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Syncrude Canada Ltd. and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for financial support of this research.

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Press Release, May 1, 1999; December 21, 2000. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 28; Washington, DC, 2000. O’Connor, P.; Mayo, S. Prepr. Pap. - Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem. 2001, 46, 381. Topsøe, H.; Clausen, B. S.; Massoth, F. E. In Hydrotreating Catalysis, Science and Technology; Anderson, J. R., Boudart, M., Eds.; SpringerVerlag: Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1991; Vol. 11. Whitehurst, D. D.; Isoda, T.; Mochida, I. Adv. Catal. 1998, 42, 345. Wang, A. J.; Wang, Y.; Kabe, T.; Chen, Y. Y.; Ishihara, A.; Qian, W. H. J. Catal. 2001, 199, 19. Oyama, S. T.; Yu, C. C.; Ramanathan, S. J. Catal. 1999, 184, 535. Aegerter, P. A.; Quigley, W. W. C.; Simpson, G. J.; Ziegler, D. D.; Logan, J. W.; McCrea, K. R.; Glazier, S.; Bussell, M. E. J. Catal. 1996, 164, 109. Qian, W.; Yoda, Y.; Hirai, Y.; Ishihara, A.; Kabe, T. Appl. Catal., A 1999, 184, 81. Song, C.; Reddy, K. M. Appl. Catal., A 1999, 176, 1. Kabe, T.; Ishihara, A.; Qian, W. Hydrodesulfurization and Hydrodenitrogenation: Chemistry and Engineering; Wiley–VCH: Weinheim, 1999. Stinner, C.; Prins, R.; Weber, T. J. Catal. 2000, 191, 438. Clark, P.; Wang, X.; Oyama, S. T. J. Catal. 2002, 207, 256. Phillips, D. C.; Sawhill, S. J.; Self, R.; Bussell, M. E. J. Catal. 2002, 207, 266. Wang, X.; Clark, P.; Oyama, S. T. J. Catal. 2002, 208, 321. 28 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


16. Oyama, S. T.; Wang, X.; Lee, Y.-K.; Bando, K.; Requejo, F. G. J. Catal. 2002, 210, 207. 17. Stinner, C.; Prins, R.; Weber, T. J. Catal. 2001, 202, 187. 18. Robinson, W. R. A. M.; Van Gestel, J. N. M.; Korányi, T. I.; Eijsbouts, S.; van der Kraan, A. M.; Van veen, J. A. R.; De beer, V. H. J. J. Catal. 1996, 161, 539. 19. Korányi, T. I. Appl. Catal., A 2003, 239, 253. 20. Oyama, S. T. J. Catal. 2003, 216, 343. 21. Duan, X.; Tenga, Y.; Wang, A.; Koganb, V. M.; Li, X.; Wanga, Y. J. Catal. 2009, 261, 232–240. 22. Ibeh, B.; Zhang, S.; Hill, J. M. Appl. Catal., A 2009, 368, 127–131. 23. Burns, A. W.; Gaudette, A. F.; Bussell, M. E. J. Catal. 2008, 260, 262–269. 24. Guan, Q.; Li, W. J. Catal. 2010, 271, 413–415. 25. Duan, X.; Li, X.; Wanga, A.; Teng, Y.; Wangb, Y.; Hua, Y. Catal. Today 2010, 149, 11–18. 26. Zhao, H. Y.; Lia, D.; Bui, P.; Oyama, S. T. Appl. Catal., A 2011, 391, 305–310. 27. Oyama, S. T.; Gott, T.; Zhao, H.; Lee, Y. K. Catal. Today 2009, 143, 94–107. 28. Oyama, S. T.; Wang, X. T.; Requejo, F. G.; Sato, T.; Yoshimura, Y. J. Catal. 2002, 209, 1. 29. Cecilia, J. A.; Infantes-Molina, A.; Rodríguez-Castellón, E.; JiménezLópez, A. J. Catal. 2009, 263, 4. 30. Loboué, H.; Guillot-Deudon, C.; Popa, A. F.; Lafond, A.; Rebours, B.; Pichon, C.; Cseri, T.; Berhault, G.; Geantet, C. Catal. Today 2008, 130, 63. 31. Guan, Q. X.; Li, W.; Zhang, M. H.; Tao, K. Y. J. Catal. 2009, 263, 1. 32. Wang, A. J.; Li, M.; Qin, Guan J.; Wang, L.; Guo, H. C.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Prins, R.; Hu, Y. K. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6052. 33. Sawhill, S. J.; Phillips, D. C.; Bussell, M. E. J. Catal. 2003, 215, 208. 34. Oyama, S. T.; Lee, Y. J. Catal. 2008, 258, 393. 35. Yang, S.; Prins, R. Chem. Commun. 2005, 4178. 36. Yang, S.; Lang, C.; Prins, R. J. Catal. 2006, 237, 118. 37. Korányi, T. I.; Coumans, A. E.; Hensen, E. J. M.; Ryoo, R.; Kim, H. S.; Pfeifer, É.; Kasztovszky, Z. Appl. Catal., A 2009, 365, 48. 38. Korányi, T. I.; Vít, Z.; Poduval, D. G.; Ryoo, R.; Kim, H. S.; Hensen, E. J. M. J. Catal. 2008, 253, 119–131. 39. Korányi, T. I.; Vít, Z.; Nagy, J. B. Catal. Today 2008, 130, 80. 40. Wei, N.; Ji, S.; Wu, P.; Guo, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhu, J.; Li, C. Catal. Today 2009, 147S, S66–S70. 41. Stinner, C.; Tang, Z.; Haouas, M.; Weber, Th.; Prins, R. J. Catal. 2002, 208, 456. 42. Reddy, E. P.; Davydov, L.; Smirniotis, P. G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 3394–3401. 43. Sundaramurthy, V.; Dalai, A. K.; Adjaye, J. Catal. Lett. 2005, 102, 299. 44. Wang, A.; Wang, Y.; Kabe, T.; Chen, Y.; Ishihara, A.; Qian, W. J. Catal. 2001, 199, 19. 45. Song, L.; Zhang, S. Powder Technol. 2011, 208, 713–716. 46. Song, L.; Zhang, S.; Wei, Q. Catal. Commun. 2011, 12, 1157–1160. 29 In Production and Purification of Ultraclean Transportation Fuels; Hu, Y., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

Hydrotreating of Coker Light Gas Oil on MCM-41 Supported Nickel

Recommend Documents